[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're no longer undecided?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being against illegitimate violence doesn't make me an anarchist. You do not hold a monopoly on claims to nonviolence.

What am I going to do about violence? I'm not going to initiate violence against anyone, and to the extent that I'm able, I'm going to discourage others from doing so either. That's what I decided to do a long time ago, and I have.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether it "counts" or not is not the issue in this question. If such a voluntary arrangement arose, why would it be incapble of providing whatever security that a state is capable of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's the issue. We got off on this entire tangent because Borodog claimed that the state is, by definition, an initiator of illegitimate force. When I responded with a definition that did not include force, you and bk responded that such an arrangement is not really a state. And yet now you are asking me why just such an arrangement couldn't provide all the services we typically expect from a government.

Well, if such an arrangement succeeds in providing the services of a state, then it's a state, and your previous objection to my definition doesn't really hold water. To answer your question: do I think it could happen? I think a state operating via voluntary cooperation and assent, high in participation and enfranchisement, has a much better chance of legitimately providing services than one which does not.

You're not convinced that a state can work. Me neither. Now what?

Well, for one, if you think you can do better, you have to give me security that isn't dependent on my ability to pay for it. Because right now, that's what I've got.